Are libraries becoming nothing more than data cash cows for the private sector?

Last week the Department for Culture, Media and Sport published its UK Digital Strategy, to much fanfare and eager anticipation amongst those of us with an internet in digital inclusion and how we advance it. The report made mention of libraries as crucial elements in the efforts to advance digital inclusion (yay!), but not quite in the way many of us advocating for public library services would want (boo!). And as for how this strategy squares with the Investigatory Powers Act, well…we’ll come to that. But let’s start with the role of public libraries…

In section two of the report, under the heading “How libraries deliver improved digital access and literacy”, great play is made of the role of libraries. They “have an important role”, they “tackle the barrier of access” and they make “significant inroads towards tackling the combined barriers of skills, confidence and motivation by offering skills training”. All of these things are true, however this role is not the preserve of libraries and library staff alone. As the report makes clear:

“Public libraries work in partnership with charities and private partners such as Halifax, BT, and Barclays to improve the lives of some of the most socially and digitally excluded people.”

They do work in partnership with these private partners and, from the private partners’ points of view, there is a big win for them in doing so. As I’ve pointed out before, the way such skills sessions are delivered is a particular bonus for companies such as Barclays. By guiding the members of the public towards using tools that are, shall we say, less then privacy friendly, it just so happens that they gain a certain advantage in terms of marketing their products. Something, of course, that would not be encouraged had library workers been providing such support (were they to receive the proper funding in which to do so).

Indeed, it seems to me that rather than being places where people can get online and gain the basic digital skills our society increasingly demands, they are becoming a gateway to massive data collection for corporations eager for more and more data to drive their marketing campaigns and, ultimately, to drive growing profits. Let’s make no mistake here, if libraries were properly funded, proper training was provided and the service was delivered according to the ethical principles by which the professional body for librarians guides its members, digital skills would be delivered in an entirely different way.

For example, there is no known reason as to why search engines such as Google or Bing are advocated for over and above alternatives such as DuckDuckGo. They work in a similar way, one is not somehow easier to learn than the other. There is one fundamental difference however. Google is an extremely successful data harvester. Create a Google account, login to your Google Chrome browser, use your Google Mail account and voila, huge amounts of data is being gathered about your online activities. And if you are Barclays, providing members of the public with guidance on using the internet and you just so happen to have additional guidance on the Barclays website, well…there’s certainly an opportunity there for free direct marketing to Gmail accounts. With DuckDuckGo, there is no data. No trail of your search history. You simply search, find what you want and no data is left behind.

As someone who is concerned about digital inclusion, I can only conclude that the current strategy amounts to not getting people online for the benefits it brings to the individuals, but getting more people online to create benefits for corporations and the government. The more people that are online, the more data is created and, ultimately, the more profit is created. Getting people online is good for business. It enables a marketing strategy that is not possible if people remain offline. For little outlay, large corporations like Barclays can get people online, teach them how to expose their data, then take advantage of this for profit and business growth. Let’s not kid ourselves into believing that any corporation is seeking to tackle digital inclusion because, for example, it increases democratic engagement or accrues any other benefit. Likewise, given the Investigatory Powers Act and the mass surveillance it permits, the more online the better the government are able to monitor the people. If you are not online, you are a black hole of data. Get connected, and you become a useful source of information. And what of the Investigatory Powers Act…

On scanning through the report it’s interesting to note that there is not a single mention of encryption technologies. Not one. There is even a section in the report called “A safe and secure cyberspace – making the UK the safest place in the world to live and work online”, it doesn’t mention encryption once. Why? It is the single most important tool available to ensure individual safety and security online. So why isn’t it even mentioned? Because the Investigatory Powers Act is explicitly hostile to it. It wants to discourage encryption technologies wherever possible. Because encryption technologies obscure data from the state. And it doesn’t want your data obscured, because it might be useful for intelligence purposes (it won’t…). Not only is it not welcome for the government, it is also not welcome for corporations. Use encryption technologies and you are obscuring data from them too. Data that they could use to sell you products, to generate sales, to drive profit. Encryption is bad for business when it is used in a way that limits the harvesting of data used for profit. (But good for business when it enables secure transactions they benefit from of course.) As Paul Bernal notes about the strategy document in terms of encryption and safety online:

@ijclark It’s desperate stuff, that anyone who knows anything about the issues will see through in a second. Designed to fool the public.

Which takes us back to where we are in terms of digital inclusion. It seems to me that the overall digital inclusion strategy is not one driven by the needs of the public (if so, why isn’t individual privacy at the forefront of the strategy when privacy is a growing concern?), but driven by the needs of government to get people online for the cost benefits and surveillance benefits it brings, and the needs of corporations that need data to be freely exchanged so that it can be utilised and monetised to drive profit. The needs of the general public are secondary, the prime motivator (for policy makers) is the creation of data. If our libraries were properly funded, if the people working in them were properly trained, that data would not be created on the scale it is when the banks (the banks!!) are providing that kind of support. Which of course, should not surprise us. The weakening of public services is exactly designed to lead to a full consumerist society.

How we prevent this is a more difficult question to tackle. The causes are deeply-rooted in an ideology hostile to public services and strongly in favour of shifting people from being citizens to being consumers. The digital strategy simply makes more explicit the extent to which the government (and corporate Britain) seeks to turn us into consumers driving profits, rather than citizens engaging in the democratic process and using access to information purely for our own benefit. With the sidelining of privacy and individual freedoms in the drive towards a mass surveillance state and in the push towards “digital inclusion”, it’s clear how close that goal is to being realised.

Earlier this week, I delivered a talk at the MmIT 2016 Annual Conference in Sheffield about digital privacy and digital citizenship. The talk covers a range of themes (to the extent I think I possibly try to cover too much ground in one short talk), with everything from ethics to democracy to surveillance to encryption touched upon to varying degrees. As is my way, the slides I posted online make little sense to the casual observer, because they are mainly text light and image heavy. So I thought I’d break it down here into various chunks by way of providing context for the talk (out of sheer laziness, all references are all on the slides at the end of this post in the relevant places…where they aren’t, I’ve added them in the text below).

Ethics

I think our ethics as library workers (as outlined by CILIP and IFLA) are crucial to how we see privacy, surveillance and the relationship with democracy. Two ethical principles in particular stand out for me:

“Commitment to the defence, and the advancement of, access to information, ideas and works of the imagination.”

“Respect for confidentiality and privacy in dealing with information users.”

“Small-scale networks such as those in cafes, libraries and universities could find themselves targeted under the legislation and forced to hand over customers’ confidential personal data tracking their web use.”

There’s a clear and present threat here to library and information services, in all their forms. If we are required to retain data on the information seeking habits of our users and pass to the security services on demand, then our users have no privacy and we are complicit in its violation. How we tackle this threat to our ethics is crucial, both in terms of our relevance (if we violate ethical principles as a matter of course, what is the point in their existence?) and, more importantly, in terms of the communities that rely on us.

When it comes to ethics and government surveillance policy there are big questions we need to confront and we need to find the answers that defend our communities. Ultimately the communities we serve must take priority over government policy. Governments come and go, the social inequality afflicting our communities never goes away.

What is surveillance?

Surveillance is presented as a tool of protection. It’s a way to protect you, your communities, your country. But surveillance is not solely about protection, it has a number of other effects. David Lyon, a leading figure when it comes to surveillance studies (I’d urge those engaged in labour and information labour to seek out his works on this topic), defines surveillance as follows:

It’s not solely a tool for protection. When we consider it in the other direction, it’s also about influencing, managing and directing. When a CCTV camera is placed on the streets, it’s not merely there to protect citizens, it’s effect is to manage the behaviour of those under its gaze, to make them behave in a particular way. This is the crucial element of surveillance that we need to consider, particularly when it comes to mass surveillance. Its existence, as Foucault argues, is enough on its own. It does not need to be active, its “permanent visibility…assures the automatic functioning of power”.

Similarly, in 1963, Robert Kennedy authorised the FBI to wiretap the telephones of Martin Luther King Jr. Following King’s assassination in 1967, Johnson ordered the army to monitor domestic dissident groups. The adaption of new technologies to be utilised for “national security” purposes has a long history. It should have come as no surprise to anyone that the internet would also be used in this way.

“In a democratic society privacy of communication is essential if citizens are to think and act creatively and constructively. Fear or suspicion that one’s speech is being monitored by a stranger, even without the reality of such activity, can have a seriously inhibiting effect upon the willingness to voice critical and constructive ideas.”

Democracy

The ability to communicate and seek out information freely is vital in a functioning democracy. As Bauman notes:

“Democracy expresses itself in a continuous and relentless critique of institutions; democracy is an anarchic, disruptive element inside the political system: essentially, a force for dissent and change. One can best recognize a democratic society by its constant complaints that it is not democratic enough.”

The ability to investigate and critique is crucial, without that ability our system simply cannot be defined as democratic. Post-Snowden we can already see the impact mass surveillance has had on people’s willingness to seek out information on controversial topics. As Penney notes, Wikipedia pages on Al Qaeda et al have seen a marked decrease in views. The consequences of being discouraged from seeking out information on such topics is the impoverishment of political debate, something the National Telecommunications and Information Administration have warned of.

Corporate Surveillance

The growth of the internet has been coupled with the growing importance of data as a commodity. As with all commodities that can be harvested, companies seek to find ways to gather a larger and larger amount of data. As Sadowski warns:

“It has created an arms race for data, fueling the impulse to create surveillance technologies that infiltrate all aspects of life and society. And the reason for creating these massive reserves of data is the value it can or might generate.”

We see this approach taken by companies such as Google and Facebook who seek out new and innovative ways to collect more data that they can use to generate a profit.

Corporations also work with the state, sharing these new innovative data harvesting techniques. For example, Operation Mickey Mouse is a partnership between the Department of Defense and Disney whereby the former studies Disney’s use of technology and works in conjunction to “collect information on Beta testing operations that the popular theme park uses on their customers”.

21st Century Surveillance

The Five Eyes – an intelligence sharing partnership that comprises the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Karma Police – Initiative launched in 2008 by GCHQ intending to record the browsing habits of “every visible user on the internet”. The system was designed to provide GCHQ with a web browsing profile for every visible user or a user profile for every visible website on the internet.

Tempora– GCHQ programme that led to interceptors being placed on 200 fibre optic cables catting internet data into and out of the UK. Potentially gives GCHQ access to 10 gigabits of data a second, or 21 petabytes a day. Around 300 GCHQ and 250 NSA operatives are tasked with sifting through the data.

Investigatory Powers Bill

The key thing to look out for here are ICRs (internet connection records). From the Bill:

190 Subsection (9)(f) provides for the retention of internet connection records. Internet connection records are a record of the internet services that a specific device connects to – such as a website or instant messaging application – captured by the company providing access to the internet.

Those that hold the data requested for under the provisions of the bill are also prevented from communicating this request with the individual who created the data requested. So, for example, if a request was made to a public library authority for information regarding an individual’s search history, the library authority would not be able to inform the individual in question. An invasion of their privacy compounded by the inability to flag this violation with them. Ultimately, the Bill undermines the ethical principles by which we should adhere and prevents us from warning our users of any violation of their privacy.

Encryption Technologies

The UK government have been publicly hostile to the use of encryption technologies for some time, despite the fact that such technologies protect every single one of us from rogue states or individuals with malign intent. For David Cameron, the notion that individuals can communicate in private was an affront and a threat. Whereas in reality, in terms of democracy, the reverse is true: invasions of the privacy of communications are a threat and one that citizens should take seriously.

As for Theresa May, the new Prime Minister, she rejects the notion that we experience mass surveillance and yet proposed the investigatory powers bill which legislates for…well, mass surveillance. A bill that has also been rubber-stamped following an “independent” review by David Anderson QC who argued that there was a “clear operational purpose” in gathering large volumes of data about individuals.

The “danger” of encryption

Repeatedly and persistently, encryption has been portrayed as a tool that assists terrorists perpetrate violent acts. This was true in Paris and in Brussels. In both cases, politicians and law enforcement pointed to encryption technology and the awareness of such technologies by the perpetrators as a key component in their ability to plan such attacks. In neither case has it been demonstrated that encryption played a crucial role. In terms of the latter attack, a laptop was found in a rubbish bin, which included an unencrypted folder called “Target”.

There has also not been any evidence in the growth in the use of encryption technologies. A 2015 wiretap report, for example, found a decline in the instances where law enforcement encountered encryption when authorised to conduct wiretaps.

Nothing to hide?

Of course, any discussion around security results in the old “nothing to fear” trope being thrown around by those seeking to degrade privacy. This is, of course, a nonsense. Did Doreen Lawrence have anything to hide when she and her family were placed under surveillance as a result of their efforts to apply pressure upon Scotland Yard to investigate the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence?

People of colour, immigrants, welfare recipients and political activists are all in the front lines when it comes to testing out surveillance techniques that are then utilised on the general public. As Virginia Eubanks argues in terms of America:

“Poor and working-class Americans already live in the surveillance future. The revelations that are so scandalous to the middle-class data profiling, PRISM, tapped cellphones–are old news to millions of low-income Americans, immigrants, and communities of color. To be smart about surveillance in the New Year, we must learn from the experiences of marginalized people in the U.S. and in developing countries the world over.”

And of course, we must remember that the state is fluid, not fixed. It changes and adapts and criminalises. Furthermore, it is not us that determines whether we as citizens have done nothing wrong, it is the state. We simply do not have the power to determine that our actions will not result in sanction by the state. We may believe that they cannot sanction us, but ultimately it is not a decision that rests on our intuition, it rests on the interpretation and actions of the state.

The tools to help

There are, however, tools that can help protect our privacy. Tor Browser, for example, can help obscure our web browsing, protecting our intellectual privacy as we seek out information. PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) encryption helps ensure that individuals can communicate with each other securely and privately. But using PGP is not easy, it requires effort and a degree of social and cultural capital that not everyone can call upon.

Indeed, for many tools that provide protections, there are difficulties in terms of economic, social and cultural capital. In terms of smartphones, for example, 95% of Apple devices are encrypted by default, only 10% of Android devices in circulation currently are encrypted (estimates from earlier this year). Not everyone can afford an Apple device, and not everyone is aware of how to encrypt an Android device – resulting in what Chris Soghoian describes as a “digital security divide” (which I’d argue reinforces an intellectual privacy divide).

There are also a range of smartphone apps that offer secure communications (or at least claim to). But these must be treated with care. Smartphones are not a secure device for communication, no matter how secure the app claims to be (or how secure the app actually is). They leak metadata like nothing else. Alongside location data, they have a tendency to leak your mobility pattern (ie commuter routes between home and work which can easily identify individuals), calls received, numbers dialled, keywords, mobile device ID etc etc.

Digital divide

Given the extent of the digital divide, it is questionable to what extent individuals have the knowledge and capability to protect their communications and seek information in private. For example, 65% of C2DE households (defined as skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers and non-working individuals) lack basic online skills (managing, communicating, transacting, creating and problem solving). 42% of internet users use the same password on multiple platforms and only 25% of individuals read a privacy statement before using a service. On the other hand, 39% of internet users claim to be reluctant to hand over personal information before they can use a service.

The role of library workers

Of course, library workers have played a key role in helping to extend digital inclusion. But they have also seen their jobs diminished, libraries closed and services they previously provided outsourced to the private sector, eg Barclays Bank. The consequences of this are obvious. Many private sector companies have no interest in ensuring the privacy and security of individuals on the internet because that limits their opportunities to market towards them or to generate profit from the data they create.

In the case of Barclays, helping individuals create a Google Account then showing them around the internet before closing by directing users to the help guides on the Barclays websites, runs the risk of delivering Barclays ads directly to the individual’s inbox. An individual that, by virtue of the fact that sought our guidance on getting online, will more likely than not lack the knowledge and awareness to understand or limit the delivery of such adverts.

How library workers can help

A Council of Europe statement (backed by CILIP) on freedom of expression, declared that individuals must “decide for themselves what they should, or should not, access” and those providing the service must “respect the privacy of users and treat knowledge of what they have accessed or wish to access as confidential”. IFLA’s Statement on Privacy in the Library Environment reminded library workers that they have a responsibility to “reject electronic surveillance”, provide training on “tools to use to protect their privacy” and “respect and advance privacy at the level of practices and as a principle”.

The Library Freedom Project in the United States has been leading the way in this area, and slowly but surely it is being recognised in the UK by library workers that this is an area we need to be taking a lead on. The collaboration between Newcastle City Library and the North East branch of the Open Rights Group has shown the way. It is possible to teach privacy skills, to work to protect the intellectual privacy of our users, either within the confines of our work, or outside of it. It is possible. We just need to act collectively to ensure that it happens.

Conclusion

We are in a position to empower our library users, to give them the freedom to seek out information without impediment, to think freely, to exchange ideas freely and, ultimately, provide them with the tools to truly and meaningfully engage with the democratic process. Our ethical principles demand this of us, and we should not falter in resisting government policy that undermines these core ethical principles and that threatens the freedom of our users.

Mass surveillance is a serious threat to the ethical principles of librarianship and the communities we serve. (Image c/o Thomas Hawk on Flickr.)

Despite not being a member of the professional body, one of my current favourite documents (there’s a series of words you don’t often see next to each other) is CILIP’s Ethical Principles for Library and Information Professionals (bear with me). Two elements particularly stick out for me and have become key elements of the presentations I have been delivering lately (and will deliver in the future):

3. Commitment to the defence, and the advancement, of access to information, ideas and works of the imagination.

8. Respect for confidentiality and privacy in dealing with information users.

The post-Snowden era has resulted in a very clear and serious threat to these ethical principles. Indeed, I would argue that we have largely failed in this regard following the introduction of internet access in our libraries (in whatever form the library takes). Under conditions of mass surveillance it is clear: we cannot defend access to information and we cannot ensure the privacy of our users without providing the tools to ensure online privacy – whether that be through the availability of privacy enhancing tech in libraries or through working with users to provide them with the skills and knowledge with which to do so.

The current lay of the land politically suggests that this problem is not about to go away, it is actually going to get much worse. The elevation of Theresa May (presented as a kind of softer One Nation Tory – see here for more on One Nation Conservatism) certainly suggests that the threats we face to our ethical principles are not about to be brushed away, but instead become more pressing. We know that May has a particularly strident approach to mass surveillance, not for nothing was May named “internet villain of the year” at last year’s Annual UK Internet Industry Awards. It seems highly unlikely that upon becoming Prime Minister, May will suddenly abandon a long-held belief in mass surveillance, a policy that is a very serious threat to our ethical principles as outlined by CILIP. The question is, how will we as a profession tackle this threat.

The signs from the forming of Theresa May’s new cabinet are already pretty clear that the pursuit of mass surveillance legislation is very much still on the agenda. Her appointment of Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary reinforces this threat. As Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson will also head up both GCHQ and MI6. Johnson has been an outspoken supporter of May’s drive towards enshrining mass surveillance into law. Only last year he declared in relation to the Snooper’s Charter:

“You’ve got to have a very tough security solution, you’ve got to be absolutely determined to monitor these people. You’ve got to know where they are and who they are talking to.

“I’m not particularly interested in all this civil liberties stuff when it comes to these people’s emails and mobile phone conversations. If they’re a threat to our society then I want them properly listened to.”

I’m not particularly interested in all this civil liberties stuff. And if we are in any doubt that his words match his actions, a quick look at his voting record suggests that he is very firmly pro a strategy of mass surveillance.

As for Theresa May’s replacement, well, I think it will come as no surprise to learn that Amber Rudd is also supportive of the rush to mass surveillance. Generally speaking, where she has turned up to vote, Rudd has generally voted for the “mass retention of information about communications” (or “mass surveillance” if we are to avoid euphemisms). So, both of the key main positions related to the introduction of mass surveillance legislation are very much in the “pro” camp. There is no doubt whatsoever that the government is shaping up to pose very serious threats to our ethical principles, as has been standard practice on the right for some time, ethics are simply a barrier to “progress”. It’s of little surprise to learn that our ethical principles continue to be threatened by a right-wing government, it’s what they do.

But what of the Opposition? Well, it’s not that much better. However, the current attempted coup against Corbyn could result in a unified threat to the ethical principles outlined. Whilst there is not conformity across the Labour Party on this issue (ha), Corbyn at least seems a bit more sceptical of mass surveillance than many of his colleagues. He at least voted to reject the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act in 2014 for example. What of the plotters in his party though?

Angela Eagle appears to offer little in the way of opposition in the threat against our ethical principles. Generally speaking, she has voted in favour of the mass retention of information about communications. And what of the other challenger, Owen Smith? Well, Smith has voted consistently in favour of mass retention of information about communications. So, should the coup be successful then it seems pretty clear that both sides of the house will be united in the belief that mass surveillance of the population is necessary. Of course, given the lack of party discipline at present, they will be effectively united even if Corbyn remains as leader because he is unable to command so many of his colleagues. There are really only two options I can see in terms of serious opposition to mass surveillance, the party respecting the wishes of the members and uniting around Corbyn, or mass deselection. Otherwise, mass surveillance is a foregone conclusion and CILIP will need to re-write their core ethical principles – because they will be worthless.

(I feel I should add here by way of caveat…I am not a Labour voter. Nor am I a Labour Party member. I’m not sure Corbyn is the right person to take the Labour Party forward, but I do think his politics are right for the future of the Labour Party. Corbyn may not be the right leader, but he holds the “right” politics. Unfortunately for those seeking to unseat Corbyn, they think both his leadership and his politics are wrong. I think this is a strategic error that will likely end the Labour Party for good. For me, a return to the gentrification of the party to ensure its appeal to the middle class will ensure its final demise in a climate where the working class have been hammered hard. But the fight for the party is not my fight, I am merely an observer.)

Whatever the future holds in this uncertain time, I’d recommend that all information professionals take a good look at those ethical principles and ask the question as to whether they are currently holding true to them. I’d also argue that we need to raise awareness of encryption technologies across the profession and beyond (taking the lead from key figures associated with the Radical Librarians Collective), particularly if we hold that our ethics are worth defending and advancing. We particularly need to be aware of what encryption tools will be effective and which will not, given the proposed legislation heading our way. I hope that CILIP batters the doors of government every single day brandishing those key ethical principles and fights for our profession and the communities we serve. These principles are under serious threat, by both sides, and for the sake of our existence and the sake of the people and communities we support, we must not allow them to become redundant.

Back in 2004, the Chartered Institute for Library and Information Professionals (CILIP) published their Ethical principles for library and information professionals. Amongst many of its principles was the commitment to “the defence, and the advancement, of access to information, ideas and works of the imagination” (CILIP 2012). This followed its endorsement, in 2000, of the Council of Europe’s declaration that users should be able to “decide for themselves what they should, or should not, access” and those providing the service must “respect the privacy of users and treat knowledge of what they have accessed or wish to access as confidential” (Council of Europe 2000). Privacy of the information the user has accessed is paramount and the profession must do what it can to ensure that such access is not impeded. But do our stated ethical beliefs and our desire to commit to access to information and ideas stand up to scrutiny in the modern era?

The disclosures by Edward Snowden in 2013 have had a significant impact upon the way we view the internet. Rather than a tool that facilitates freedom of expression and creation, it has increasingly emerged as a tool enabling extensive state surveillance and the control and management of individuals. It was clear, as if there was ever any doubt, that our activities online were monitored by governments, including data collected by large corporations (Greenwald et al, 2013; Leopold, 2014; MacAskill, 2013).

The history of surveillance

Discussions around surveillance are often linked to Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon prison design. Bentham was influence by his brother on his return from Russia to design a prison with cells arranged around an outer wall with an observation tower in the centre (Foucault 1977). The design enabled the guards to be able to look into any of the cells at any one time, whilst the prisoners were unable to view the guards. Michel Foucault, in his work Discipline and Punish argued that the consequence of Bentham’s Panopticon was the “automatic functioning of power” – that is that the prisoners were disciplined without the need for any action to be taken against them (Foucault 1977). There was no need for the guards to exercise power as the prisoners were managed by the belief that they could be seen. This “management” aspect of surveillance is also picked up by David Lyon, a respected figure in the surveillance studies community, who defines surveillance as the “focused, systematic and routine attention to personal details for purposes of influence, management, protection or direction” (Lyon 2007).

Of course, state surveillance is nothing new. Governments have always sought to engage in varying degrees of surveillance in order to minimise “threats”. In 1913 for example, the UK government ordered that photographs be taken of all known suffragette prisoners in order to limit their activities upon release (Casciani 2003). In 1967, the President of the United States ordered for the surveillance of domestic dissident groups in the wake of the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr (Richards 2013). However, surveillance hasn’t been pursued as a strategy by the state without hesitation. In the same year as the President ordered surveillance of domestic dissident groups following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr, the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice warned:

“In a democratic society privacy of communication is essential if citizens are to think and act creatively and constructively. Fear or suspicion that one’s speech is being monitored by a stranger, even without the reality of such activity, can have a seriously inhibiting effect upon the willingness to voice critical and constructive ideas.” (President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice 1967)

As Lyon and Foucault had observed, the use of surveillance as a tool manages and influences individuals. This may influence individuals not to threaten the state or fellow citizens, or it might inhibit their willingness to explore ideas and act as critical members of society.

Surveillance and democracy

The ability to seek out information freely and without impediment is crucial in a democratic society and as librarians we have a key role in providing that space to enable intellectual enquiry. As Zygmunt Bauman, another key figure in the study of surveillance, observes:

“Democracy expresses itself in a continuous and relentless critique of institutions; democracy is an anarchic, disruptive element inside the political system: essentially, a force for dissent and change. One can best recognize a democratic society by its constant complaints that it is not democratic enough.” (2001: 55)

To enable those complaints and critiques that mark out a society as democratic, individuals must be given the space to explore and seek out new ideas. If that space for intellectual inquiry is not available, then individuals are not able to engage in the democratic process. As librarians with an ethical duty to ensure individuals can access information privately, accepting the right to do so confidentially, we clearly have a duty to provide such a space.

Online encryption technologies are crucial in ensuring such a space is available for individuals to both seek out information and to communicate with others. Unfortunately, much of the political establishment in the United States and the UK are hostile to the use of such technologies. Shortly after the terrorist attacks in Paris last year, the head of the CIA, John Brennan, argued that this served as a warning about the danger of allowing encryption technologies to exist (Brennan et al. 2015). The fact that there was no evidence of the use of such technologies didn’t appear to be factored into his criticisms (O’Neill 2016). Furthermore, there have been those that have argued that Snowden’s revelations have heightened awareness of online encryption technologies amongst terrorists. Once more, however, experts on the so-called “Dark Web” have found that no such evidence of an upsurge in usage of such technologies has occurred (Flashpoint Partners 2014).

The UK government appears to be particularly keen on limiting the availability of private spaces online. Both the Karma Police and Tempora programs have led to the mass collection of data (Shubber 2013; Gallagher 2015). David Cameron has been particularly hostile to the use of encryption technologies, arguing that there should be no means of communication that the government cannot access. Furthermore, the requirement of the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill underline the extent to which people’s online activity will be exposed to interrogation by the state. As for encryption technologies, the Prime Minister has made it clear that, as far as he is concerned, no communications between individuals should be conducted in private (Temperton 2015).

This raises important questions for us. If we are to accept that the privacy of our users must be respected and that “knowledge of what they have accessed or wish to access” should be treated confidentially, how does this sit with the desire of the state to obtain information about the information we are seeking out and our communications? Does the collection of such data in our libraries, on our library computers, not contravene our commitment to maintain the privacy of our users? If so, how do we tackle this?

As with all other aspects of technology, one cannot expect individuals to both know how to use encryption technologies and understand which tools are appropriate to use. Encryption technologies are not necessarily easy to use and without the knowledge of which tools to use, individuals will not be in a position to protect themselves. Those with social (a network of skilled support), economic (the means to purchase equipment) and cultural capital (ability to invest time to improve skills) are at significant advantage. Given that this enables a degree of democratic engagement (to freely explore ideas and critique the status quo) that those without cannot achieve, there are clearly implications for the state of our democracy. If only those with capital are able to explore, to engage and to critique, then the democratic system will be skewed in their favour. Those that do not have the ability to engage and critique democracy freely and without impediment will therefore be excluded from the democratic process.

Digital inclusion

The current state of the digital divide indicates the extent to which support is needed to ensure that citizens can seek and obtain information freely and securely, without fear of a breach of their intellectual privacy. The Office for National Statistics (ONS), for example, identifies the extent to which skills and cost are impediments to people getting online. According to the latest data, 31% of those that have never been online say the reason they have never been online is a lack of skills, whereas 14% say cost of equipment and 12% access costs are why they have never been online. It is particularly stark for the most disadvantaged in society (Office for National Statistics 2015). Of those that lack the basic skills, 69% are from the C2DE social group (BBC Learning 2014).

This raises serious concerns in terms of democracy. Those with the skills to use the internet effectively, to utilise more advanced tools such as encryption technologies and to protect their internet activity from state or corporate eyes, will be better equipped to “think and act constructively”, to gather the information they require to critique institutions and the political system. Those who lack that ability, who don’t have the skills to use the internet to the fullest extent, will find themselves exposed to state and corporate surveillance, limiting their ability to conduct intellectual enquiry and putting themselves at risk. Given the ethical position taken by CILIP and IFLA, it is incumbent on us as information professionals to level that playing field and ensure that it is not only the most privileged in our society that can securely and privately seek out information that challenges the status quo.

Librarians and surveillance

In the United States there have already been moves to challenge this inequity. The efforts of Alison Macrina and the Library Freedom Project in particular have been key to tackling the inequality of online privacy (Burns 2015). Training members of the public and helping to establish the use of tools such as the Tor Browser (a browser that provides the user with a high degree of privacy when online) in a public library, Macrina’s Library Freedom Project has highlighted the need for library and information professionals to help ensure that citizens can access information confidentially (Doyle-Burr 2015). These efforts have been picked up by both the American Library Association (ALA) and the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) who have both engaged in greater efforts to raise awareness of online privacy and encryption technologies (ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom 2015; IFLA 2015).

To date no comparable activities have taken place in UK libraries to protect intellectual privacy. Indeed, in terms of public libraries, recent moves to encourage private sector support to develop online skills have made such efforts less likely to take place. The Barclays Digital Eagles scheme, for example, has a heavy emphasis on encouraging individuals to use commercial products such as Google and other popular online tools that do not offer the privacy and security of tools such as Tor (for browsing), DuckDuckGo (for searching) and Signal or an email service that uses the OpenPGP (Pretty Good Privacy) standard (communications) (Barclays 2015). The side effect of encouraging such software is that signing individuals up for a Google account then directing them to the Barclays website leads to the increased likelihood of being served Barclays’ ads direct to the user’s inbox (Google 2015).

The question is, is it possible for UK libraries and librarians to replicate the work of the Library Freedom Project? It is undoubtedly more difficult in the UK to pursue such actions. Unlike the United States, we do not have a strong cultural sense of the importance of freedom of expression. Whereas the US enshrines such values in its constitution by way of the First Amendment, there is no such equivalent in the UK. Whilst the First Amendment does not open doors unconditionally, it is a lever by which pressure can be applied – and one that librarians have successfully utilised in the past (Pollack 2006). Furthermore, whilst the Federal government provides funding, it doesn’t superintend library services as the British government does (CILIP 2013). A government hostile to privacy technologies (as stated by the Prime Minister) is unlikely to allow a service that it oversees to provide online security training that contravenes its wish to limit the use of such technologies. However, this should not limit the use of tools such as DuckDuckGo, which provides greater security of an individual’s internet search history, or the use of ad blockers and other such privacy enhancing tools. Furthermore, whilst libraries that are superintended by the government may find it difficult to teach the necessary skills to protect intellectual privacy, those that aren’t subject to state oversight may find there is scope to support the intellectual privacy of individuals. Libraries independent of state oversight may find that there is potential to raise awareness of encryption technologies and provide support in their use.

Although the encouragement of the use of tools that protect intellectual privacy will not be easy in an environment where there is outright hostility from the state, we do need to recognise that the protection of intellectual privacy is fundamental to the ethical framework in which we work. It is, therefore, essential to seek and identify ways in which we can hold true to our commitment to ensure the intellectual privacy of our users. There are steps that we can take now to ensure this, and there are others that will need us as a profession to come together to find ways to make happen. What we can surely all agree on, is that individuals must be free to seek out information, to inform and educate themselves, freely and without impediment. The challenge for us is to ensure that we enable this right to the fullest possible extent.

CILIP, 2013. Short Briefing on the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. , (January), p.2013. Available at: http://www.cilip.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Briefing on Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964.pdf.

Council of Europe, 2000. New information technologies: public access and freedom of expression in cultural institutions, Available at: http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/culture/Resources/DECS_CULT_NTI_libex(2000)2_EN.pdf.

Flashpoint Partners, 2014. Measuring the Impact of the Snowden Leaks on the Use of Encryption by Online Jihadists, Available at: https://fpjintel.com/portal/assets/File/Flashpoint_Jihadi_Encryption_Software_Sept2014.pdf.

Foucault, M., 1977. Discipline and punish : the birth of the prison, New York: Pantheon Books.

Gallagher, R., 2015. From Radio to Porn, British Spies Track Web Users’ Online Identities. The Intercept. Available at: https://theintercept.com/2015/09/25/gchq-radio-porn-spies-track-web-users-online-identities/ [Accessed November 8, 2015].

We need to speak out as a profession against mass surveillance. Image c/o floeschie on Flickr.

Today the Investigatory Powers Bill has its second reading in parliament. The introduction of the Bill is not only a threat to society in general, it poses a serious threat to our profession and, in particular, our commitment to defend the intellectual privacy of our users. We must speak up as a profession to defend the rights of our users and, wherever possible, seek to defend their intellectual privacy.

Ever since the disclosures by Edward Snowden in 2013, I’ve been concerned about the impact of mass surveillance both on our society, and on us as professionals. Disappointingly, there seemed to be little in the way of action by the profession (particularly in the UK – hampered by a professional body that cannot be overtly political), until the Library Freedom Project came along and started making waves in the United States. Inspired by Alison Macrina’s work, I started to consider more deeply the impact of mass surveillance on our communities and the various issues it raised. For me, alongside concerns about intellectual privacy, it highlighted a further aspect of the digital divide: autonomy of internet use. Given the limited amount of literature on the relationship between the digital divide and surveillance, I decided this was an important area to explore more extensively. So, I started reading around and pulling together an extended piece for the Journal of Radical Librarianship on the topic.

The main inspiration for the piece was the article Intellectual Privacy by Neil Richards (which is available OA here and is highly recommended). For me this really crystallised some of the key issues around surveillance and the protection of intellectual privacy (the ability to read, communicate and seek out information without being observed doing so). Aside from the very crucial focus on intellectual privacy and its importance, Richards also highlighted the role of librarians in supposedly developing some of the “norms” of the concept itself. This role seems particularly strong in the United States (where Richards drew most of his examples), with even the ALA taking a role in advocating for the intellectual privacy of individuals through a variety of initiatives.

As well as Richards’ works, David Lyon also played a key role in forming my views. Lyon is a leading figure in surveillance studies and has written a number of invaluable pieces on the topic that, as with Richards, helped to clarify my thinking (see, for example, his paper on understanding surveillance today). For example, Lyon’s definition of surveillance was particularly useful in understanding how surveillance operates upon individuals. For Lyon, surveillance is about the “focused, systematic and routine attention to personal details for purposes of influence, management, protection or direction”. It’s interesting (yet unsurprising in some respects) the extent to which surveillance within the UK is seen as primarily about protection, with little consideration with regards to how mass surveillance controls or “manages” individuals (or maybe we just don’t care that it controls us). What I also found particularly useful here is that Lyon’s definition doesn’t solely apply to the mass data collection by the state, it also relates to that growing phenomenon: corporate surveillance.

Surveillance and ethics

Clearly, there is a conflict between intellectual privacy and mass surveillance. If you exist in the conditions of the latter then you clearly cannot have the former. For society it presents a serious issue – for librarians it presents a critical issue that gets to the core of our professional ethics. If we cannot (or do not) protect the intellectual privacy of our users, then we are failing as professionals. Indeed, given we exist in a state of mass de-professionalisation, where volunteers are seen as adequate replacements for “expensive professionals”, we are rather making the case for our own extinction. If we do not have a set of ethics and professional values that we not only espouse but actively promote, what makes us any better than a volunteer?

In terms of the profession in general, there are clear guidelines from organisations representing our profession regarding the conflict between mass surveillance and our ethics. In 2005, for example, the Chartered Institute for Library and Information Professionals (CILIP) produced a “Statement on intellectual freedom, access to information and censorship” and endorsed the Council of Europe’s ‘Public access to and freedom of expression in networked information: Guidelines for a European cultural policy’. The Council of Europe’s guidelines clearly stated that individuals are to “decide for themselves what they should, or should not, access” and that those providing the service should “respect the privacy of users and treat knowledge of what they have accessed or wish to access as confidential”. Furthermore, the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) advised in their ‘Statement on Privacy in the Library Environment’ that information professionals have a responsibility to “reject electronic surveillance”, provide training on “tools to use to protect their privacy” and “respect and advance privacy at the level of practices and as a principle”. The message is clear, we have an obligation to ensure the privacy of our users and to provide them with the tools necessary to enable them to ensure the can defend their intellectual privacy.

Tackling the digital divide

This task is made even more urgent given the nature of the digital divide. We know well enough that access isn’t merely enough, but that individuals also require the skills with which to exploit the internet to their own advantage. In a report published in 2014, the BBC found that 1 in 5 adults lacked the four basic skills (send and receive emails, use a search engine, browse the internet, and fill out an online application form). Given that the most disadvantaged are most likely to be affected by mass surveillance it’s clear there is a need to provide the necessary support to ensure that everyone is able to ensure their intellectual privacy, not merely those with the means by which to do so. What is clear, post-Snowden is that the digital divide is as much about the gap between those who can protect their intellectual privacy and those who cannot, as it is about having the skills to be able to use the internet to benefit individuals economically, educationally and in terms of healthcare.

We, as a profession, have a clear commitment to tackle the digital divide. We play a crucial role in levelling the playing field, ensuring both access to the internet and support as individuals seek to exploit it to their own advantage. This crucial role is, of course, being undermined by the delivery of such support by the private sector, in particular banks (see Barclays Digital Eagles). Of course, corporations have no interest in ensuring privacy of the individual online, because greater privacy results in the exposure of less personal data which large corporations can exploit to drive profit. We, as a profession, are not beholden to share-holders. We have no reason to expose our users’ personal data for exploitation. We have ethical obligations not to expose the reading habits of our users. It is this that distinguishes us from banks and from volunteer run libraries.

It is, therefore, incumbent on us as library and information professionals to develop our skills with regards to online intellectual privacy, to seek to defend the intellectual privacy of our users and, more broadly, to speak out against government legislation that attacks our professional values as well as posing a threat to society in general. We have an obligation as professionals to defend intellectual privacy and to ensure that it is not only a value afforded to those endowed with social, cultural and economic capital, but also to the most disadvantaged and vulnerable in our communities. If we are serious about tackling the digital divide in all its manifestations, then we need to be serious about ensuring autonomy of use for all. So long as our communities are vulnerable to mass surveillance we will not achieve true equality of access to the internet and the wealth of information it provides. That is why we must act.

Librarians have a key role to playing in terms of digital inclusion and protecting intellectual privacy. [Image c/o Duca di Spinaci on Flickr – CC-BY-NC license]

Towards the end of last year, I was privileged to be invited to talk at CILIP’s Multimedia Information and Technology (MmIT) Group AGM about digital inclusion as a representative of the Radical Librarians Collective (see the presentation below – which includes a list of recommended reading!). The invitation was well timed in terms of coming up with a focus for my talk as I have spent the best part of 5 months working on a journal article for the Journal of Radical Librarianship on the digital divide (which, pending peer review, will hopefully be published in the early part of this year). Specifically, I’ve been interested in looking at digital inclusion from a slightly different angle, that of the divide in terms of state and corporate surveillance.

As followers of this blog will know, I’ve been talking about surveillance and the Snowden revelations for some time now. Concerned about the gathering of information about us, whilst the state seeks to limit the amount of information we obtain about them, I’ve mainly been focused on the impact this has in terms of our democratic processes. However, since the emergence of the Library Freedom Project (founded by the awesome Alison Macrina), I’ve been increasingly interested in the role that libraries and librarianship has to play in this area. It seems to me, that the disclosures have to expand the terms by which we define what the digital divide is. Whilst there has always been a focus on access, and on skills, there must be greater attention on what people actually do online and, furthermore, the extent to which individuals are able to act freely in terms of seeking information.

Being able to seek out information that offers alternatives to the status quo (indeed, not just “offers” but challenges) is vital in a democratic society. Without the ability to seek out and understand alternatives, it is hard to accept that our society can possibly be described as “democratic”. What is clear from Snowden’s disclosures is that the ability to seek out information and communicate with others whilst ensuring your intellectual privacy is increasingly difficult. Difficult unless you have the skills and knowledge with which to defend your intellectual privacy.

I tend to think that I am fairly skilled in terms of using the internet. I can seek out information quickly and efficiently, I can provide assistance for others, I am fairly innovative in the ways in which I use certain online services. What I lack, however, is the skills necessary to really ensure my intellectual privacy, to defend myself against state or corporate surveillance. I have some skills, I have some basic knowledge, but I don’t know how to protect myself fully. And yet I consider myself reasonably skilled. What about those that have difficulties in using the internet in a basic way? What about those that struggle to do the things that I take for granted? Aren’t they even more exposed to state and corporate surveillance? Isn’t their intellectual privacy even more under threat? Surveillance tends to affect the most disadvantaged to the greatest extent, is intellectual privacy something only for the privileged?

I don’t want to get into this even further here (wait for the longer version!), but I do think there are issues here about the nature of the digital divide and how we should view digital inclusion post-Snowden. There was a time when it was considered fanciful that librarians could even consider to provide the sort of skills that the state may see as a threat to the status quo. However, the efforts by the Library Freedom Project in the United States underlines that this is no longer the case. If librarians in the United States, the home of the NSA, can help people defend their intellectual privacy, why can’t we do the same in the United Kingdom? I’m not suggesting that we can collectively as a profession start setting up Tor nodes in libraries or teaching people how to use encryption technologies, but we need to have the debate about how we ensure the intellectual privacy of everyone in our society, not just the privileged few.

I’m very conscious that I have not been blogging too frequently over here for the past few months – there have been reasons for this. For the past couple of months I’ve been working away at a journal article that has pulled together a lot of my main interests (surveillance, digital divide etc) and, in all honesty, it has taken up a huge amount of any “spare” time that I’ve had. What with the reading and the writing and the re-drafting (and the impending re-drafting that will no doubt be imminent), I’ve had little time to actually blog about some of the many developments that have interested me over the past couple of months (the continual developments re surveillance, freedom of information etc etc). I’m hoping that’s going to change in 2016 (as much as it can when you have a family requiring attention too of course!).

I’m hopeful the article itself will emerge in early 2016, all being well. It’s currently going through the peer-review process which is a new experience for me. I guess it’ll be a little while yet before it’s published (if it is accepted of course), but I’ll certainly post details here if and when it does jump the necessary hurdles.

Whilst I’ve not had huge amounts of time to devote to blogging, I have created a new micro-blog related to the article that I have submitted. The intention really is partly to pull together resources that are interesting and relevant as a way of helping to keep the article itself “live”. One of the difficulties I found with writing about a current topic was the volume of new developments I was coming across every single day. It’s bad enough trying to put something down and prevent yourself from keep tweaking and editing it, it’s even worse when every day there is a new angle to consider, a new snippet of information that affects what you’ve written. It’s with this in mind that I decided I wanted to keep developing my thinking in this area, and the micro-blog seemed a good way of doing so in a way that enables me to share information for others interested in the same themes (as well as helping me to track developments for further articles, talks on the topic).

If you are interested in issues around surveillance, you can find my micro-blog here.

Plans for 2016

All being well with the article, I am planning on pushing on and attempting to secure talks at conferences about some of the themes within it. Of course, if the article doesn’t make it, then this is all a bit redundant. But in a rare stab at optimism I’m going to go with the notion that maybe it will be interesting enough to warrant publication. I’ve rarely submitted abstracts for talks before, but I think 2016 might be the year I give it a go. I’m fortunate in that I already have a couple of talks lined up in the new year, both of which I am very much looking forward to.

Soon after we return to work after the Christmas/New Year holiday, I will be talking at CILIP’s Multimedia Information and Technology Group AGM entitled “What is the library’s role in digital citizenship?” on January 7th. My talk at this event will be based primarily around the article I mentioned above, focusing on Snowden, surveillance and the impact upon democracy and the individual – specifically in terms of a privacy divide. I’m very nervous about the talk (I believe it’s “sold out” which adds to the nerves!) but I’m very much looking forward to it. It’s this area that I particularly wish to explore at other conferences during 2016 and I plan on trying to submit abstracts to as many as I can. So, yeah, no pressure on making sure that the talk proves interesting and valuable. I kinda see this area as one that is going to continually develop, with new challenges emerging that will necessitate continual development of the exploration of this area. Certainly my experience over the past few months has taught me that it’s going to be a challenge to keep up with developments.

If you are coming to the AGM on the 7th January and you are interested in the themes covered, please do come and have a chat with me (or email me afterwards if you prefer). It’s a topic that I really want to engage with people on and it’s one that I feel I have a lot to learn about. For me, online surveillance forces us to reconsider the digital divide and how it manifests itself. The difficulty, I think, is identifying what we, as a profession, can do to tackle this particular aspect of the divide. Particularly in a country that is well known for being regressive and invasive when it comes to individual privacy and liberty.

Anyway, more on this in 2016 I guess. I hope to be much more active on this blog in the coming months. I guess, for now, it’s a case of have a great Christmas and New Year and…well…watch this space!

The end of the Second World War in 1945 saw not only an end to the global conflict, but also to the old economic order. The election of the first Labour government in the UK paved the way for a rejection of the economic policies practiced in the pre-war era, and the acceptance of a new model of economic governance – one based on a belief that government intervention in the economy is necessary to create stability and prosperity. However, this adoption of a new economic approach was not solely the preserve of the Labour party; it was also (broadly speaking) accepted by the Conservative Party in what became known as the post-war consensus.

From 1945 onwards, economic policies formulated by John Maynard Keynes were adopted by both the dominant political parties. There were, of course, tensions on the margins of both, but in the centre (where leadership tends to reside within political movements) there was a consensus that to ensure security and prosperity, the government of the day must adopt:

The goal of full employment;

The acceptance of the role of trade unions;

A mixed economy, with a degree of state ownership of the utilities;

A functioning, equitable welfare state;

An adherence to progressive taxation and redistributive welfare spending.

From 1945 to the late seventies, this consensus remained in place with both parties, to varying degrees, ensuring that Keynes’ economic theories remained at the forefront of government policy. This ultimately led to a great post-war boom and a far greater degree of income equality. However, this “consensus” was not without its tensions, with the right-wing increasingly dismissive of this economic consensus. In the mid to late seventies, these tensions finally burst to the surface and led to the termination of the Keynesian approach to managing the economy.

The election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979 led to the final breakdown of this post-war consensus (arguably this began with Callaghan’s government going to the IMF and obtaining a loan which came with a variety of conditions regarding the shrinking of the state). Having been largely dismissive of the post-war consensus and the restrictions it placed on corporate Britain, Thatcher launched a programme of (highly unpopular) reforms to the economy. Assets were sold off, old state industries were attacked and the post-war consensus which had at its heart the notion of the “citizen” and “society” was abandoned, explicitly rejecting the latter and embracing a renewed faith in freedom, choice and the power of the individual. The erosion of the “citizen” had begun, replaced with a belief that we are, effectively, no more than consumers and customers who must be unconstrained by the state in a truly free market economic system.

In 1983, Thatcher underlined this break from the post-war consensus when she gave a speech to the young Conservatives. Mocking the Opposition, Thatcher asked delegates:

“Could Labour have managed a rally like this?”

(The answer from the delegates was, of course, “no”.)

She went on to add:

“Well, in the old days perhaps. But not now. For they are the party of yesterday. And tomorrow is ours.

“We are all here to state our faith in Britain’s future and our determination to keep her strong and free.”

Whilst this was clearly an attack on Labour, it also signified that, under her premiership, the post-war consensus was dead. It was as much a message to her own side as to the opposition. When she refers to “the party of yesterday” she means a party wedded to the post-war consensus, as Labour remained in the early 80s. When she says “tomorrow is ours” she doesn’t just mean the Conservative Party, she means supporters of her particular brand of conservatism. The “tomorrow” evoked is, clearly, a Thatcherite vision and it is the Thatcherite vision of society that will, in her belief, endure. Indeed, as her next sentence makes clear, not only will it endure but it will be fundamental to a “strong and free” future. This vision was part of the overall belief pushed by her administration that “There Is No Alternative” (TINA). The only path to prosperity is the Thatcherite path; there are no other viable options (and certainly the ‘old’ approach was not to be considered viable).

For Thatcher, the only path to ensure security and prosperity was a shrinking of the state and an adherence to free market economics, influenced by figures such as Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. After the economic shock of the 70s and the subsequent IMF bailout, the only way to ensure the country was secure and remained one of the world’s leading economies was to fully embrace the free market, unencumbered by state interference (as they saw it). There was, as far as Thatcher and her supporters were concerned, no alternative. The alternative that was envisioned by Labour was considered archaic, a remnant from a previous age, alien to the realities of the modern world. A rejection of the Thatcherite path was considered a danger to the UK, a manifesto for instability and self-destruction. As far as Thatcher and her supporters were concerned, the monetarist counter-revolution influenced by Friedman’s economic ideas was essential to overturn the Keynesian orthodoxy that had existed in the post-war period.

TINA has become so deeply ingrained in our society that the Thatcherite ideology has percolated its way throughout our social and political life. We saw, with the emergence of Tony Blair, that even the Labour party cast aside any remaining adherence to the post-war consensus and accepted broad swathes of Thatcherite policy, dispensing with any remaining notion that they could in any way be considered a party of the socialist left. Under Blair, the party adopted the mantra of the free market and trumpeted its ‘values’, ushering in a new era of corporate influence of state infrastructure (see the infamous “Clause 4 Moment”). It now seems barely possible to consider alternatives (say, for example, the raft of policies that were accepted as part of the post-war consensus) without being painted as either a dinosaur from an earlier age, or a dangerous radical. What was once an accepted position across the political establishment, part of a broad consensus, has become either ‘radical’ or old-fashioned.

This market orientated doctrine has infiltrated all of our public services and is having a damaging impact upon professions. We have seen, as free market ideas have infiltrated public services, a growth of commercial, corporate language within the public sector. We have seen this in the rise of the use of terms such as “customer” and “marketing” in areas where they once had no place. Our language has become corrupted, commercialised in a way that wasn’t conceivable pre-Thatcher. Whereas once the rhetoric was about citizens and their rights, now it’s about consumers and their choices. This has become so deeply ingrained that rejecting the language of the market is considered backward or dangerous.

We have seen this within librarianship. We have had our own TINA moment. The embrace of consumerist language is, as Thatcher’s ideology always insisted, the only game in town. Increasingly we are led to believe that we have to adopt both the language and the approach of the market to ensure our security and prosperity. For example, in a document entitled “What Makes A Good Library Service”, CILIP (the professional body for library and information professionals) advised that for a service to be considered “good”:

Staff should be helpful, knowledgeable, welcoming and well-trained. They should be involved in a workforce development programme. Staff in front line customer service roles should be supported by specialists in service planning and promotion, leadership and management, and those areas of service delivery requiring specialist skills and expertise.

In 2010, the now defunct Museum, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA) published a practitioner guidance document called “What do the public want from libraries”. The document contains 31 references to customers. One section, “Expanding the offer – target genuine customer needs, don’t squeeze out books… just add coffee”, advised (with fairly clear implications if not adopted):

Coffee bars should be seriously considered by all libraries who don’t have one already. As well as driving up visitor numbers they can generate income and are an opportunity to build links with a local business.

“…explore existing good practice and assess the potential to further enable income generation to support and enhance as well as to improve the overall resilience and sustainability of library services.”

Again, income generation (whereby citizens become customers) is seen as essential for “resilience and sustainability” (much as Thatcher’s reforms were supposedly, as her supporters presented it, crucial for the resilience and sustainability of the UK econonmy). The consumerist narrative that is a crucial foundation of current economic and political orthodoxy, has become central to the survival of public libraries. The implication of the work between the Arts Council and Locality being that without this “income generation” the future of library services is under threat (there is no alternative.)

Our need to accept this terminology is pushed at us from both within and without the profession. Its use by official bodies (particularly bodies representing the profession) normalises it. The shift to market-orientated approaches that has emerged since the counter-revolution has infiltrated not only our public services, but our professions. The only viable way forward, so it seems, is to accept this reality and orientate our services to ensure a degree of customer services excellence. If we don’t, we risk the stability and long-term future of the service. We are, as the country was in the mid-70s, at a point of crisis. Salvation will come by adopting the language and structures of those that prosper within the free market.

Of course there are alternatives. We can ensure the survival and prosperity of both the profession and libraries in general through alternatives to market-orientated rhetoric, just as there are alternatives to liberalised free market economies (see Syriza’s rejection of the austerity orthodoxy). There is a very real danger that we could find ourselves boxed-in, only seeing solutions that have their roots in the market. We wouldn’t be the first profession to make this mistake. Economists themselves made the mistake of believing that the free market, unencumbered by the stabilisation of the state that Keynes advocated, would provide the answers to our economic woes and bring prosperity and stability. As the past seven years have demonstrated, they have been proved utterly wrong. As economist Paul Krugman notes, “Keynesian economics remains the best framework we have for making sense of recessions and depressions.” Economists made a mistake in rejecting alternatives because it believed in the market, we’d do well not to make the same mistake.

Professional bodies should be transparent and truly democratic (image c/o KCIvey on Flickr).

As I am sure everyone must (hopefully) know by now, today saw the CILIP general meeting to vote on the motion put forward to call a halt to the rebrand process. As a non-member of the professional body, the whole process has been fascinating to watch from the outside. There’s no doubt that the process sparked a lot of controversy and a lot of debate, some of which was healthy and some of which certainly was not. Generally speaking, I tend to find that debate is very much a good thing. We should argue, discuss and grapple as professionals in the hope it leads us to a better place (although clearly not for the sake of it). But what of that ‘better place’? What would I like to see from a professional body representing librarians and information professionals?

There are, for me, four main things I would look for in a professional body to encourage me to both join and participate (warning: this is not an exhaustive list!):

Member-led – I would like any professional body I was to consider becoming a member of to be led by its members, not by a council or a group of remote ‘elders’. I would want members to be involved in every step of any process that the organisation undergoes. That means, in this case, members should have been asked if they wanted the organisation to engage in a rebrand process right at the very start. If the members had been consulted at the start, it is arguable whether today’s meeting would even have taken place. The supporters of today’s motion may not have liked it, but at least there would have been a mandate from the members to follow the process.

Democratic – democracy should be absolutely at the core of any professional body. Again, in the context of the meeting, I would expect democratic principles to be at the core of the process. So, for example, if the opponents of the motion get to send a message to all members stating their case, advocates of the motion should be given equal opportunity to put forward their case. Loading the dice in favour of one over the other is not democratic, and should have no place in a body representing professionals. This was exacerbated by the announcement at the meeting that the result of the vote would not be binding, despite various figures making it quite clear a vote for the motion would result in the process being abandoned altogether. One wonders how people would have voted had they not been misled in this way.

Transparent and open – we operate within the information profession. It is, therefore, not unreasonable to expect standards of openness and transparency to be adhered to at all times and throughout the business of the organisation. An organisation that should be standing up for transparency and the principles of Open Access needs to adhere to those very same principles. This process has been less than transparent. The survey itself was certainly far from transparent. Furthermore, as Tom points out here, there is a desperate need for council to be more open and, dare I say it, more accountable.

Publicly espouses views consistent with core ethics – this one isn’t really specific to the meeting and the process itself, although it is linked and touches on aspects of some elements above. Essentially, I think it is vital for the ethics espoused by the profession (ie a commitment to transparency and access to information) to be reflected in the actions of its representative bodies. Not just in terms of its actions internally, but also in terms of engaging more widely on these same ethical values. So, for example, I would like to see a professional body for information professionals in the UK take the same line as the ALA over Edward Snowden. I would like a professional body to both adhere by these core ethical principles in terms of its own operation and to stand up for these ethical principles publicly where they see violations of these principles.

For some, the question of the name and the rebrand itself seems to have been a core issue (from the small proportion of the discussion I saw anyway). There has been plenty of discussion about the alternative names, which one is most acceptable, whether they are better than the existing name, or whether they are actually any good at all. For me, I’ve tended to see this process through the prism of the core principles above. The reason I supported Tom was not because I thought the names were terrible or that CILIP is preferable to any possible alternative, it was partly because I believed the process was unnecessary but also because I didn’t believe the process itself met the standards we should expect.

I personally believe that the process fell down on not being democratic, being led by council rather than members and lacking in transparency. What I took away from the vote today was that this was acceptable in the drive to rebrand. Personally, I do not think it is acceptable. We either abide by our ethical principles (in which case the process would not stand up to rigorous scrutiny) or we accept that our ethical principles count for nothing. The message that went out from the whole process is that the interests of the council trumps the interests of the membership. Whether that message is an accurate one to take from this series of events is, of course, entirely debatable, but it is the message I take away from it.

In terms of the rebrand itself, there is one key thing that needs to be considered. To effectively confront the challenges that the professional body faces, a rebrand is unnecessary in my view. What it is far more important to concentrate on is reputation which is quite different. I’ve referred to this in this comments somewhere before on this blog, but this extract in the MIT Sloan Management Review defines the terms quite nicely:

Brand is a “customercentric” concept that focuses on what a product, service or company has promised to its customers and what that commitment means to them. Reputation is a “companycentric” concept that focuses on the credibility and respect that an organization has among a broad set of constituencies, including employees, investors, regulators, journalists and local communities — as well as customers. In other words, brand is about relevancy and differentiation (with respect to the customer), and reputation is about legitimacy of the organization (with respect to a wide range of stakeholder groups, including but not limited to customers).

Whilst the brand may need some work (and as that same article makes clear, you must not focus on one to the detriment of the other), it is the reputation that needs the most pressing focus. I think it has already been established that there is a need to ensure that CILIP is respected and seen as a credible organisation amongst a ‘broad set of constituencies’. This can, in my view, be achieved without focusing on a rebrand (“a new name for the organisation, a strap line, new logo, and new visual identity“) it can be achieved through actions that literally do not cost a penny. It can be achieved through taking a visible, public stand on a variety of issues (eg the Snowden example referred to above). A strong ethical position, speaking up on matters that impact upon our ethical values will reinforce the reputation and, in my view, help to drive up membership. (Incidentally, I notice that John’s blog post also makes the brand=reputation error.)

So, what kind of professional body would I like to see representing our profession? One that is truly democratic, member-led, transparent and publicly and firmly espouses strong ethical views. Its focus should not be a rebrand, but a focus on its reputation. By focusing on a strong ethical position, both in terms of its internal operations and its external outlook, I think it can win back members. As one member said to me in private today*:

“I don’t give a shit what it’s called, but I want it to be effective and ethical.”

Perhaps when the effectiveness and the ethics are sorted, then is the time to think about a new logo and name.

Just a quick post based on some discussion today. Given the situation libraries/librarians are in, I’ve often wondered if a more specialised trade union is the way to go. CILIP can only do so much because of its charitable status and, in my view, existing trade unions are too broad in their membership, making it difficult to fully commit to a particular area. Indeed, I would say unions as they exist at present are unable to effectively deal with the neo-liberal world in which we exist (but that’s another argument).

My interest was piqued by a tweet from Simon at SLA Chicago earlier:

To defend their library, a librarian union in Los Angeles ran a read-in protest at the Mayor’s house #SLAChicago@ukpling

So could we have that here? Is it desirable? Would it be effective? Would it water things down? I should add, I am not thinking of this as instead of CILIP, more as well as. I’d be interested to hear what people think.

UPDATE: Further to this, Simon has pointed out the “Librarian’s Guild” in Los Angeles. Also, in looking into this, I have come across the Progressive Librarians Guild, also in the United States. I actually quite like the sound of the latter but not sure of its value at present. Would something like that be a valuable thing in the UK too?